Thursday, December 28, 2017

I have had the very great privilege this year of training in many locations around the world. Again and again, it seems that the people in our field want nothing more than to end abuse by helping those who have abused. As others have often said, many of the people who benefit from this work will not know to say thank you because the potential abuse won’t happen. Many of the contexts in which we provide treatment, however, seem to work against us; living up to our full potential as therapists can be a challenge. Why?

Even the most conservative studies find that people who abuse are often at greater risk to commit non-sexual crimes. Still, programs tend to focus exclusively on preventing further sexual crimes. While this is certainly understandable, the fact that individuals who enter treatment all have different risk profiles for various crimes, sexual or otherwise, argues against one-size-fits-all treatment regimens. Yet, this is exactly what is now happening in many jurisdictions. The more refined our assessment processes have become, it seems, the less assessment-driven our treatment programs actually are.

Scripting was a focus of at least one workshop at this year’s ATSA conference in Kansas City, including a debate on the merits of highly scripted treatments. One manual in use is scripted down to the level of client affirmations during exercises. It is not hard to imagine how treatment participants’ experience is less one of talking with a therapist, but more about the curriculum itself. Such circumstances should lead us to wonder if it would be more honest to jettison terms like “treatment”, “facilitator”, or “therapist”, etc. and replace them with “class”, “instructor”, etc.

Throughout 2017, I met with countless people who provide treatment based on various strict curricula, some more recently developed than others. The most common questions always centered in the same area: How do I use actual therapeutic processes with a manual that tells me what I am supposed to be doing in every session? How do I ensure a strong therapeutic alliance when the curriculum dictates what I am doing and outside stakeholders are clear that they want me to use this curriculum? How do I provide assessment-driven, individualized treatment within a framework like the Good Lives Model when my professional training has always been about following the curriculum? What if I use motivational approaches that help my client meet some goals but not others? How do I interview someone to identify their Self-Regulation Model Pathway?

These questions come naturally in an age of empirically supported treatment protocols, in which methods such as Aggression Replacement Training can be rigidly prescriptive (although the curricula typically used in our field can’t claim to be empirically supported). Indeed, these are the right questions for clinicians to ask when considering how best to deepen their practice in individual and group therapies, specialized case management, community supervision, etc. Still, I come to the end of 2017 wondering whether clinicians haven’t surrendered our responsibility to clinical decision-making based on the needs of each client in favor of getting through the curricula that directors and outside stakeholders want us to use. Again we come back to the fundamental question asked by a conference presenter many years ago: Are we personalizing our manuals or manualizing our persons?

Whatever one’s work environment, my hopes for 2018 include that each person providing bona fide treatment:

•Can work not just within whatever framework they use, but actively attend to the therapeutic processes that decades of research have shown to work (e.g., warmth, empathy, hope, agreement on the goals and tasks of treatment) (Marshall, 2005; Prescott, Maeschalck, & Miller, 2017).

•Privileges the client’s voice and gets feedback from their clients.

•Remembers that every conversation is most effective when it involves active attempts by the professional to connect, explore the subject at hand, and offer ideas about the way forward.

•Keeps in mind that the most effective treatments are collaborative and marked by agreement on the nature of the relationship (i.e. do the client and therapist agree on what the therapist’s role is?) as well as a shared vision of the goals of treatment and the means by which they are accomplished.

•Works to study each client and delivers truly individualized treatment no matter which curriculum they use.

•Remains committed to the task and rigorous in implementing treatment and supervision.

•Maintains an active dialog with external agencies in order to provide the treatment that each client needs rather than simply what each stakeholder wants.

•Choreographs each session to be a dance between the momentary presentation of each client and what research shows will keep treatment in line with the principles of risk, need, and responsivity.

•Keeps that focused sparkle in their eyes when working with even the most difficult client.

In short, my greatest hope is that the people doing this work will keep the humanity in human services. It’s not just a personal value; it’s what is demonstrated to work by all of our extant research!

Thursday, December 21, 2017

A few weeks ago, Griffith
University (Brisbane, Australia) hosted a two day research conference on
innovative international approaches to understanding and responding to sexual offending.
The symposium was a collaboration between the Griffith Criminology Institute
and the Griffith Youth Forensic Service with the objective of bringing
contemporary international debates [from the ATSA, NOTA and ANZATSA
conferences] on sexual abuse to Brisbane. In this blog we discuss the main
points of discussion and outcomes of the event.

The two day conference was held
straight off the back of the 2017 ANZATSA meeting to capitalize on the fact
that so many international speakers were in our neck of the woods. Several
presenters made the trip from Auckland (New Zealand) to Brisbane (Australia) to
share the knowledge of sexual abuse research and practice internationally, and
to highlight and discuss new and best practices. The first day of the
conference saw presentations from a host of international speakers from the USA
(Jill Levenson; Alissa Ackerman), New Zealand (Gwenda Willis) and the UK
(Andrea Darling; Carlene Firmin MBE; Kieran McCartan). The speakers addressed:
the impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences; the importance and promise of
Trauma Informed Care; understanding the life histories of people who sexually
abuse; the importance of the labels that we attach to individuals; the interaction
between the survivor voice and service user voice; the experience and potential
of vicarious restorative justice; female perpetration of sexual abuse in
institutional settings; and how we can develop a rounded case management
approach to understanding the contextualized risk of sexual offending among
peers.

All presenters emphasized the
individual nature of sexual abuse and, therefore, why we need to take this into
account in responding to, managing, and preventing sexual abuse in the broader
community. The speakers called on all attendees to break down our professional
barriers and break out of our silos so that we can work together more
comprehensively. The feeling in the room was very much in line with the theme
of ATSA’s forthcoming conference in 2018 #bettertogether!

The second day of the symposium
was more a practical research roundtable. The roundtable was attended by the
presenters from day one, plus an invited group of local researchers, clinicians,
and stakeholders. After a quick round of introductions, we shared the common
themes that had emerged from the international meetings in our field, with a
focus on key debates and emerging trends. Most had attended some combination of
ATSA, NOTA, ANZATSA, ANZSOC, ASC and/or BSC. We then broke out into thematic
groups based on our previously identified research interests. Folks spent the
afternoon with the opportunity and space to plan and discuss ongoing and
nascent research questions; brainstorm possibilities for collaboration and data
sharing; and agenda setting that prioritizes the most important issues in our
field today.

Bringing this second day to
fruition was a long-term goal of Danielle’s. She often found herself excited
and overwhelmed at the end of a conference, but then lacked the time to have
any detailed, follow up conversations. She says she would often spend the
flight home furiously consolidating notes scribbled on cocktail napkins or
business cards. So this was a chance for a meeting of the minds between
established researchers, emerging scholars and PhD candidates, as well as
practitioners and policy makers all in one room. The feedback was very positive
and folks were grateful for the slower pace and opportunity to have longer and
deeper conversations and, as one delegate called it, “thinking time.”

The two day event reinforced the
need for us all to work together and to recognise that sexual abuse is an
international issue. It was also interesting to observe that there are many
more things that unite us than divide us – for example, as the US grapples with
the “Weinstein effect,” and as those Hollywood revelations make ripples in international
news, it was clear to see that each of our countries, cities, neighbourhoods,
and fields of expertise have their own such examples. Indeed, we are all in
this together. Perhaps most inspiring was the feeling that while attendees had
come and were eager to learn about the approaches from abroad, each of our
international guests was in turn inspired by the many inventive, innovative,
and creative methods that we have developed down under. As the world gets
smaller and better connected, and we acknowledge that we are more similar than
different, it behoves us to explore how we can all learn from each other. This
two day conference reminded us that much can be gleaned from the success of
unique initiatives that have been able to flourish under legislative landscapes
quite dissimilar to those in the US. Similarly, there is much to be gained by
understanding how different approaches have been able to develop in communities
with healthcare systems or social circumstances that are distinct from those
experienced by our American cousins.

As we move into 2018, watch this
space for more information on ways we can engage in an international knowledge
exchange with the goal of making society safer.

Thursday, December 14, 2017

So when
we talk about the adults…mainly men…who are sexually exploiting the vulnerable
young people around them, what is the right question? That is too often
becoming lost in all of the current media coverage in the United States related
to sexual exploitation.

It is
truly unbelievable for someone who has worked in this field for 30 years to see
all that has happened in the last 30+ days. I have devoted my professional life
to stopping sexual violence in all of its forms by counseling those who commit
sexual offenses. I never truly thought I would see the day where society would
be so openly having this discussion. So I have decided that it is time to add
my voice and perspective to the growing public conversation.

The horror
of sexual violence is as old as society itself. We refer to it as sexual abuse,
exploitation, or harassment, and use labels like pedophile, predator, and victim.
For those who don’t really want to face the issue, it can be easier to see it
as all being the same. And yet in my 30 years of experience, I have seen how
this issue is infinitely more complex. So what was the question again? Is
senatorial candidate Roy Moore more like the father of the Messiah, as a supporter
has described him, or a pedophile (sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children),
as others have said? Neither is accurate.

So what
is the truth? For the first time in history, a large number of people in this
country, including the women reporting Roy Moore for sexual exploitation, feel
empowered to come forward with their stories of sexual exploitation. The media
is publicizing these stories which has the ability to facilitate change of individual
behavior and the underlying culture.

Given this
media coverage, the challenge to ALL of us is to learn how to talk about this. I
would like to offer a few suggestions about how to have these very difficult
conversations in a way that is respectful and hopefully engages all of us. In
doing so, we must allow for the attention to ultimately remain focused on those
with the courage to come forward and those they accuse:

1)All of us who are reading these stories would benefit from an
accurate reporting, understanding and discussion of these unfolding events. Use
of emotional-laden terms like pedophile, which does not appear to be applicable
in the Moore case, distract from understanding what occurred. Correct
information will help us have this conversation in a constructive and
productive fashion.

Potential Media Reporting:

“Senatorial candidate Roy Moore has been
accused by multiple women of engaging in sexually exploitive behavior. One of
the women reported being the victim of what would constitute sexual assault as
the behavior would be a crime if committed within the statute of limitations.
The other women described the exploitation as consisting of dating them while
they were still minors, but above the age of legal consent in Alabama, when
candidate Moore was in his thirties. All of the women described trauma related
to their experiences with candidate Moore.”

2)When people come forward with their personal stories of
sexual exploitation, we should offer them support and validate their
experience. This does not mean we automatically accept at face value what they
are saying as proof of a crime and convict the accused without proper due
process. Trauma does not always express itself in a straight forward and direct
manner. We need to initially support individuals who come forward to share
their experiences without judgment.

Potential Response to Those Who Choose to Share Their Sexual
Exploitation Publicly:

“I support the strength and bravery of (person
reporting sexual exploitation) for coming forward and sharing his/her story. I
would encourage (accused name) to step away from his/her role as (fill in
position) to seek assistance in addressing this allegation.”

3)Finally, how should someone accused of sexual exploitation
respond? We have seen many different responses over the past month (outright
denial, inability to recall, justifying the behavior, taking responsibility for
how the person reporting sexual exploitation may have misinterpreted the
actions which were not meant to harm or offend, etc.). A short statement of
accountability without trying to explain or excuse would best serve both the
person accused of sexual exploitation, as well as the person making the
allegation.

Potential Accused Response:

“I, (fill in name), take full accountability
for my actions involving (name of person reporting sexual exploitation) and the
harm this behavior has caused. I will be stepping away from my role as (fill in
position) in order to address my behavior and what I can do to cause no further
harm to (name of the person reporting sexual exploitation) or anyone similarly
in the future.”

While it
is important for society to have this larger conversation about sexual
exploitation, it is equally important that we allow space for the accused and
the person reporting the sexual exploitation to address what happened. For the
person making the allegation, this may include learning how to manage trauma
and live with what happened. For the person accused of sexual exploitation,
this may include an opportunity to be accountable for the behavior and receive
treatment to better understand the behavior and prevent its recurrence. IF we
are going to support healing and accountability, then we must do it in the
right way. Leper or Messiah is too easy. It lets us all off the hook in terms
of truly listening and hearing how to do our part before it happens to any
other young people. So let’s have the conversation and learn from it. What do YOU
say?

Thursday, December 7, 2017

The bi-annual ANZATSA conference took place from the 28th
November – 1st December in Auckland, New Zealand. The conference was
a real mix of practice and research emphasising the role of prevention, risk
management, protective factors and an emphasis for an understanding of the
needs of aboriginal/traditional communities in working with perpetrators of
sexual harm. The conference was very international in nature with speakers and
attendees coming from New Zealand, Australia, pacific islands, Singapore, USA,
UK as well as The Netherlands.

The plenary sessionsfocused on
the need to reframe sexual harm as being more than just a criminal justice
issue, with speakers emphasising the need for a public healthapproach (Elizabeth Letourneau, Jill
Levenson, Maia Christopher); how we reframe the socio-political debate (Maia
Christopher); a need to think about the role of trauma and Adverse Childhood
Experiences in the lives of perpetrators (Elizabeth Letourneau, Jill Levenson,
Alissa Ackerman); how we need to build protective factors into the management
and rehabilitation of perpetrators (Elizabeth Letourneau, Jill Levenson,
Michiel de Vries Robbe); the need to listen to and re-evaluate our
understanding of sexual harm in the context of traditional/aboriginal
communities (Bryon Seiuli, Marlene Lauw, Pam Greer, Linda Waimarie Nikora) and
the importance of how we listen to victims/survivors and incorporate their actual
lived experiences into how we respond to sexual harm (Alissa Ackerman). The
plenaries emphasised that we have reached a watershed moment in international
and transitional conversations around sexual harm and that we need to reframe
these issues more appropriately.

As we have said before, there are more things that unite our experiences
in the field of sexual harm than divides us. We just need to open our eyes,
ears, and hearts to learn and adapt from each other’s good (and bad) practice. One
tone that remained present throughout the ANSATZA conference was that anyone
and everyone with knowledge about sexual harm knows that current policies such
as registration, notification, and residence restrictions aren’t working in the
USA, arguing strongly that these should not be imported as is to other
countries internationally.

ANZATSA 2017 kicked off with a public engagement event prior to the
start of the conference, where the film “Untouchable” was screened. The
documentary screening was followed by a panel discussion with Jill Levenson,
Alissa Ackerman, Mark Hutton and Marlene Lauw. It was developed and lead by
Gwenda Willis as well as her colleagues in the “Advancing Sexual Abuse
Prevention”. The event was a great success with members of the public mixing
with attendees at ANZATSA and really emphasising the importance of informed and
constructive sexual harm policies; therefore, reinforcing and emphasising the
main themes of the conference.

Additionally, several sessions focused on the needs of survivors of
sexual violence, including the need for trauma informed approaches to working
with clients. This was an exciting aspect of the conference, as presenters
represented multiple countries, including New Zealand, Australia, South Africa,
and the United States.

Of course, the conference location (New Zealand) ensured that there
would be an emphasis on the assessment and treatment of indigenous people. One
can read about this in books, but there is nothing like the actual dialog of a
conference setting. Conference Co-Chair Armon Tamatea, for example, made a
number of excellent points as he examined the process of risk assessment both
inside and outside the cultural space of Maori life. These ranged from the use
of diagnoses developed well outside of Maori culture to the pathologizing
aspects for indigenous peoples of considering risk in isolation from protective
factors and the cultural context of community and family.

The primary take-away from these experiences for all of us is the
importance of redefining the field of sexual harm to being an inclusive,
multidisciplinary arena that talks across the reality of sexual abuse and
allows us to share good practice and learn from each other. What became
apparent is that we all agree that we need to change the narrative as well as
perception around sexual harm and that now, with all the issues being addressed
in society, is the time to start doing this collectively. Of course, a truly
multidisciplinary approach starts with each of us being able to collaborate
with one another.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

The
response to #MeToo, ever growing reports of sexual harassment, and other
harmful sexual behaviors, often includes responses that indicate the accused
chose to see their behaviors as consensual and mutually desirable. Historic,
cultural, and current mass media messages that perpetuate norms of male
privilege and sexual conquest make it challenging for those who value equitable
relationships and who crave mutual pleasure.
In a society that values a system of deflecting responsibility for one’s
behaviors or the impact those behaviors have on others, it is challenging to
hang on the basic meaning of consent. As
David Brooks wrote in his November 2, 2017 NYT opinion piece, “…in the public
mind the line between unwanted sexual attention and force is growing
indistinguishable.”

Consent
is not a new term. We hear this term all
the time in medical settings and research.
Consent in these areas ensures participants are fully informed so they
know what they are agreeing to.
Additionally, they are aware of any risks or possible effects and the
right to say no. A minor (under age 18)
cannot consent to participation in these treatments or activities on his/her
own. An adult who is incapacitated or in
an altered mental state cannot consent to participate in these events
either. However, too often such
expectations are not considered for consent to sexual activities.

Why
isn’t clearly getting and giving consent always considered to be erotic?
Perhaps consent is perceived as interrupting the flow of passion in the moment.
Perhaps consent sounds too tame or heteronormative. A less visible yet probable factor is the
notions of sex and erotic being commandeered by the pornography industry.

In
a pornified culture, yesterday’s porn is today’s mainstream media. The
pornography industry has fueled the increase in hyper-sexualized mass
media. The ease of access to today’s
Internet pornography further packages women as sexual commodities and objects
to be used by male consumers.
Additionally, the porn industry portrays pain and degradation as sexy.
In a pornified culture, women are said to be worthwhile only if they are sexy,
and sexy is determined by how much degradation and pain they can “take” sexually. Alternatively, men’s masculinity is
questioned if they are not consumers
who, “get it,” “take whatever they want” and “get off.”

Without
some very creative writing, signing consent documents is not likely to be a
turn-on. So, how do we make sexual consent erotic? How do we make it a
contingency for further action? Beyond
basic education about consent, there needs to be a change of individual and
societal mental filters. Sex is often
portrayed as a performance or a trophy, creating a filter in which only a
scoreboard matters, rather than considering a human being. Society needs to see the exploitive use of
sex and pornified distortions for what they are, so society can see the
frequency of this leading to people being harmed or causing harm. True,
informed consent, is not present when one person has the power and control over
another. Arguments such as:

they
knew what was coming

they
did it before

they’re
making good money

they
didn’t say no

they
look like they liked it well enough

are
cognitive distortions and justifications for persons to feel better about neglecting
to care about another's pleasure (or lack thereof), pain, or humiliation. See
it. Change the filter.

Getting
and giving consent for a sexual relationship can and should be rewarding in and
of itself. The process can be sensual and hot.
Developing meaningful relationships that flourish takes time. It takes
time to learn each other’s likes, wants, and needs. Discovering what each person desires and
establishing boundaries paves the way to a depth of intimacy that brings
unparalleled satisfaction. Being able to ask, “is this okay” or “would you like
me to do [fill in the blank]” and respecting his/her answers heightens arousal
by diminishing anxiety, allowing both partners to enjoy each moment.

Lessons
tend to be very gendered as to the meaning of consent. Men learn to see consent
as an event – hearing yes or no at the time of the desired activity. Women learn to view consent as an ongoing
process, often on a more emotional and intimate level. (Beres & MacDonald,
2015). This disconnect can lead to
misperceptions on what has or has not been agreed to – especially when any
power differential or social norm is involved.

Listening
is a big part of effective communications. In fact, Scott and Graves note
selective listening often contributes to sexual coercion. In these cases, the one who manipulates or
forces only hears what s/he wants to hear – something supporting the desire for
a sexual encounter – and ignores anything negating the desired activity. Sometimes these issues lead to the one who
does the harm attempting to make the one harmed believe s/he did consent, when
this was not the case. This is just
another example of someone using a power or privilege to harm another human
being, then blaming those victimized instead of taking responsibility.

It
would be much easier if no one ever wanted sex with anyone who didn’t fully agree
to sex with them. However, when power over others is considered a turn on rather
than honestly and fully being desired by the other person, the potential
erotica of consent gets lost. According to the Merriam-Webster online site, the
term “erotic” is among the top 20% of searched words. This site gives the definition of erotic as
simply “devoting to, or tending to arouse sexual love or desire” or “strongly
marked or affected by sexual desire.” (2017).

Having
a meaningful connection with another human being fills the most basic desires
of the human heart: being included, affirmed, chosen, blessed, safe,
heard/understood, and touched. (Laaser & Laaser, 2008). When seeking erotic consent in your
relationships, consider the following acronym: Caring and compassionate connection, Overtly attending to each other’s needs and desires, Never negating each other’s limits, Sensual/mutually satisfying and sexy, Effort – putting in the work to make
sure all is well and enjoying the moment, Nibbling
away at uncertainty, Timely
communication.

Scott, Katie & Graves, Clint. (2017).
Sexual violence, consent, and contradictions: A call for communication
scholars to impact sexual violence prevention. Pursuit: The Journal of Undergraduate
Research at the University of Tennessee. (8)1; 159-174.

Thursday, November 23, 2017

In the tech world, product testing is a must. To make sure a product
provides a great experience for potential users and clients, it is essential
that the product be tested throughout various stages of development. A company
that releases a product that does not reflect customer needs will lose those
customers. Likewise, restaurants that don’t solicit feedback from diners won’t
stay in business long.

You may be wondering what this has to do with the Sexual Abuse blog; a lot actually! As we
reconceptualize sexual harm/abuse from being a criminal justice issue to a
joint public health/health/criminal justice issue, the idea of the service user
becomes essential. You would never be able to do health research or development
with only the practitioners, stakeholders and any research with service users
being process, not outcome, driven; which is what we do in the sexual
abuse/harm field. We need to understand the service user (both those who have
been sexually harmed and those who have caused sexual harm) and make them part
of the research process in order to develop a fully rounded service. At the
2017 ATSA Conference in Kansas City, Missouri, we heard from keynote speaker
Patty Wetterling about the original impetus for the Jacob Wetterling Act and
other modern sex crimes policies. Most readers would agree with Patty that
these laws were created with the best of intentions. However, research has
shown that the outcomes of current SORN are not the panacea we imagined them to
be. We know this, as do most people who perform even a cursory Google search.
More than anyone, individuals on the registry know it.

Individuals on public registries, their family members, and those
who have experienced sexual victimization have an important role as “users”. There has been some research that has
incorporated the live experiences of individuals and their family members who
are impacted by SORN (see Lisa Sample’s work). Most of this work has
illuminated the difficulties inherent in community reintegration, as well as
finding and maintaining stable employment, housing, and prosocial relationships;
which is why outside of the USA any countries that have registers do not
publically notify communities. The reality of the register is about “bait and
switch”, it is about focusing on known offenders, who are less likely to
reoffend, rather than helping victims or supporting prevention. Conversely, there has been only one published
study to date addressing the impact of SORN on those who have been sexually
harmed (Bandy, 2015). This study found that individuals who have experienced
sexual victimization see little reflection of themselves or their experiences
in policies that were created with specific types of victims – namely children
who were sexually violated and murdered by strangers – in mind. This has made
it difficult for individuals who have experienced sexual trauma to seek help
and support because their experiences were not like the cases memorialized in
law. In addition, the white elephant in the sexual harm room is the fact that
perpetrators can, not all we may add, experience Adverse Childhood Experiences
(including, physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, etc.) which may contribute
to their perpetration of abuse later in life; which means that victims get
penalized twice.

User voices are integral to public policy, but sex crimes policy has
negated, and in many ways silenced the voices of those most in need of a voice
– namely individuals who have been impacted by sexual harm. Autoethnography is
a qualitative methodology whereby the researcher uses the self as the research
subject. As a
research method, scholars use their individual experiences to understand a
particular phenomenon. In the
academic realm, autoethnography has been utilized by historically marginalized people:
people of color, gender non-conforming people, and others whose individual
voices have been silenced. This method allows for the experiences of
marginalized and otherwise silenced constituents to use their experiences and
voices as the subject of analytic research. Perhaps one paradigm best known for
autoethnographic work is convict criminology, where individuals who are
incarcerated or formerly incarcerated use their experiences to further our
understanding of the field.

The authors have worked in the areas related to the service-user’s
voice. Kieran and David will be joining Danielle Harris to present data in this
area at the ANZATSA conference in Auckland next week. David has published
extensively in and outside of ATSA on the importance of routinely soliciting
the feedback of those participating in treatment programs. At the 2017 ATSA
conference, Alissa co-presented a collaborative autoethnography. In the paper,
Alissa and her co-author Alexa
Sardina discuss the analysis of their lived experiences as survivors of
sexual violence and their independent paths to becoming sex crimes researchers.
Although autoethnographic work may be criticized for
a lack of objectivity, generalizability, and validity it reminds us that we are
personally connected to our research. Alissa and Alexa conclude that
despite being trained to be objective and unbiased, their personal experiences
absolutely impact their understanding of sexual violence and sex crimes policy.
Further, they articulate the importance of honoring both the professional
expertise and the personal experience they bring to the table. The merging of
both voices offers access to people who might otherwise dismiss either of us as
“just a survivor” or an “out of touch academic”.

This is particularly timely given much of the recent discourse on
prominent figures being publicly accused of sexual transgressions. Last week we
published a blog piece on the importance of honoring authentic apologies. The
piece garnered landmark readership with some applauding our stance and others (via
social media and in trainings) articulating the need to “take sides”. As
someone who is a survivor of sexual violence, who has an established career as
a sex crimes researcher, and a person who works directly with individuals who
have sexually offended, Alissa argues that there are no “sides”. David and
Kieran have said as much in writings and trainings. Indeed, those who
perpetrate sexual violence themselves have higher rates of sexual victimization
and other adverse experiences in their backgrounds.

The prevention of sexual abuse requires a multi-faceted approach
that encompasses victim advocates, treatment providers, researchers,
individuals who have sexually harmed, and individuals who have been sexually
harmed. Prevention takes a village. To privilege one group of voices over
others silences groups that could have important insight. People who use
autoethnography must ask themselves whether their story is useful and how might
others use their story in a useful way. Alissa believes that her experiences
are useful for the field – David and Kieran agree that telling of these
experiences is crucial to healing at all levels of society.

At the front lines of treatment and policy, it is clear that
including the service-user’s voice can improve services, identify methods that
aren’t working, and produce ideas for innovation. However, we need to be brave
in engaging the service user voice as it may be seen as inappropriate, useful,
biased and divisive by some groups (including, policy makers). Businesses in
the tech world and restaurant industry know that once you respond to a
customer’s feedback, you very often have a customer for life. It’s time for
deeper listening to all who are involved these services.

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Will an
authentic apology ever be enough? This is a question we asked ourselves this
week in the wake of Louis C.K.’s apology to the women he masturbated in front
of. Last Friday, the comedian responded to a report in the New York Times where
five women told their stories about his behavior with a written apology which
can be read in full here.

In his statement,
he acknowledged that what he did was wrong. More importantly, he explained that
he justified his behavior because he did not fully understand that his behavior
was a real predicament for these five women. He did not fully recognize the
power differential he maintained. With this statement he is accepting
responsibility for his actions.

Several
outlets have published pieces chastising the apology. One in particular that
has made rounds on social media can
be read here. The piece admonishes Louis C.K. by rewriting the apology to
make it, as they say, a real apology. It is true that he does not actually use
the words “I am sorry”, but we argue that his admission and acknowledgement is
a step toward healing, reconciliation, and transformation. Indeed, people who
have experienced sexual abuse are frequently highly sensitive to the language of
apologies and can spot insincerity quickly. While the critiques of C.K.’s apology
raise important points (and the apology doubtless went through several rounds
of editing), apology is still an interpersonal process that cannot be
meaningfully dictated by outsiders.

Most
individuals who experience sexual victimization and/or harassment agree that an
apology – an acknowledgement that what happened to them was wrong - is an
important step in the healing process. These individuals rarely receive an
apology. Perhaps one reason that apologies are hard to come by is that when
they are given they are perceived as inauthentic or not good enough. At the
same time, sensitivity is required; an apology should never be written in a way
that compels the person harmed to accept it or forgive before they are ready.

The Louis
C.K. apology offers a teachable moment for anyone who has ever committed a
harmful sexual act. It shows that it can be done and it can be powerful. It
takes courage to own up to harmful behavior, but doing so offers a space for
authentic connection. It is unfortunate that what appears to be a meaningful
apology is met with judgement and admonishment – the very things that lead to
disconnection. Professionals working with people who have abused often observe
that these individuals often have intense trouble expressing their thoughts as
eloquently as they and others would like. Sometimes this is due to intellectual
and other learning disabilities. At other times it can be due to shame and
self-hatred as a result of their actions. In the end, it is the dialog that is
the most important.

In previous
posts (link them here) we have written about restorative justice and how it
might be beneficial in cases involving sexual harm. Restorative justice (RJ) is
a framework that focuses on repairing the harm that was caused. The most
typical RJ practice, victim-offender mediation, puts the person who caused harm
and the person who was harmed in the same room. This can be daunting for
survivors of sexual violence, which has made RJ inaccessible in most cases of
sexual harm.

Professionals
have not made their minds up as to whether RJ is useful in cases of sexual
violence, as many believe it can cause secondary trauma for the survivor or
allows the individual who offended to relive and “enjoy” the abusive
incident(s). Acknowledging that, it is important to remember that in most cases
both the individual who caused harm and the one who was harmed will come into
contact with each other at some point in the future, as over 80% of sexual
abuse cases involve people known to one another. When RJ is used in cases of
sexual violence, (i.e. in CoSAs) an apology – usually written and passed via a
third party – can be seen as lacking legitimacy. We end up with a challenging
paradox of wanting heartfelt and freely given apologies, but do not fully
engage in processes that enable this to happen.

If done
correctly, one positive outcome of RJ type sessions is the insight gained by
the individual who causes harm. RJ can help people understand the impacts of
their actions and their offending behavior. It can also help survivors gain an
understanding of why they were victimized. For RJ to begin to be effective, the
individual who caused harm must admit to their offense(s) and must offer an
apology.

It is easy
to point fingers at celebrities about which we know little. It is easy to
unleash our collective rage at these public figures. However, this outrage does
not and will not end sexual violence because most people who act in sexually inappropriate
ways do not fully understand that their behavior is harmful.

Louis C.K.
is a prime example of this. He justified his behavior and believed that it was
acceptable because he asked the women before he masturbated in front of him. He
did not understand the impact of his behavior until much later. This in no way
excuses his actions, but it provides a framework for understanding the mindsets
of many people who act in sexually inappropriate ways.

Each of us
has been affected by sexual abuse in one way or another. One of the authors,
Alissa, is a survivor of sexual violence and participates in restorative
justice type sessions with men in community based treatment for sex crimes. To
date she has shared her story with close to 200 men, answering their questions
about the impacts of sexual victimization and asking them questions about their
offenses. She writes: “What I have learned in this work is that approaching
individuals with authentic curiosity and non-judgement allows for connection
and understanding that would not occur if I showed up with anger… I’ve learned
that many of these men have very little understanding of how their actions have
impacted the lives of the individuals they’ve harmed. The behavior itself and
the harm it causes becomes abstract until a survivor is sitting in front of
them outlining in detail how sexual trauma has changed her life. Then they get
it.”

Perhaps one
way for powerful people to better understand the impacts of the harm they cause
when the engage in sexual harassment, sexual assault, or rape is for them to
stop talking and start listening. Louis C.K. ends his statement by saying, “I
will now step back and take a long time to listen.”

If he, and
others in shoes like his, are willing to listen, maybe it is time for us to
speak in open, honest, authentic conversations. Instead of pointing fingers,
reacting in anger, judging with disgust, we should embrace dialogue and honor
that just because someone should have known that their behavior was wrong and
harmful, doesn’t mean they actually knew it. Perhaps that starts with an
apology and the willingness to listen.

Friday, November 10, 2017

All too often, media and societal discussions about sexual
abuse and harassment focus exclusively on the offence in general and often
graphic terms and the related definitions linked to that offence, rather than taking
a broader yet nonetheless realistic view of the individual (which is what
comprehensive risk formulation, treatment, and community management focus on). Labelling
people by offence makes for accessible media coverage, but is problematic in
terms of understanding those who cause harm. After all, developing an
understanding of the mechanisms of abuse is vital to prevention, rehabilitation,
and reintegration (and something that we have discussed before on the blog).

As such, there has been a growing movement around the
use of person-first language in describing people who commit sexual harm. That
is, rather than stopping at terms such as “sex offender”, many of us have said
for years that we should be referring to those who have sexually abused as
exactly that: people who have sexually abused. In other words, by labelling behaviour
and not people, society can better understand and prevent abuse and harassment.
The accurate use of language matters; terminology used inappropriately or out
of context it can be damaging, not only in terms of how we work with individuals
who have committed sexual harm but also in terms of how we as a society and as
individuals come to terms with the many issues involved.

There are a multitude of ways to describe sexual abuse
and harassment; this can be highly problematic. A recent example of this is actor
Kevin Spacey’s statement
about his sexual advances towards a 14-year-old when Spacey was 24. These
actions involved a ten-year age gap and crossing the age of sexual consent
barrier, as well as a host of social norms/conventions. Spacey, in discussing
the case, referred to himself as being gay in an apparent attempt to draw
attention away from the illegal nature of his behaviour, but it conflated the
issue. His statement reinforced the mistaken idea that paedophilia is linked to
homosexuality, which is not the case on two fronts.

First, paedophilia is not meaningfully linked to
homosexuality any more than it is to heterosexuality. An attraction to one
gender or another doesn’t define a person as paedophilic (which involves a
sexual attraction to children). Second, being sexually attracted to a 14-year-old
does not make someone paedophilic, as that term describes someone who is
sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. A person with a sexual interest
in pubescent or post-pubescent children generally is often referred to as hebephilic,
although the exact definitions are controversial and the subject of
considerable scholarly debate. While it might be argued that this is a case of
semantics, it’s not! Finally, it is extremely important to note that the act of
having sex with someone too young to provide legal consent is itself not the same
thing as an entrenched sexual interest in children or pubescent individuals.
Behavior is not necessarily the same as a true pattern of sexual interest and
arousal.

As more complaints and issues arise, we will start to
see that Kevin Spacey (like Jimmy Saville and others) does not exhibit the
traits necessary for a diagnosis of hebephilia or paedophilia. Rather his
actions may be related to other motivations. In other words, his motivation may
well be the act and not the type of victim. At a societal level, we have
started to discuss the issue from the wrong perspective. It has never been more
important to separate fact from fiction, and science from the apparent science
fiction that makes up too much of public discourse.

We need to report and discuss sexual abuse,
harassment, and victimisation using the correct terminology so that individuals
who commit sexual harm and those who
experience it get the necessary response that helps them; mislabelling can
cause negative personal and social responses. The reality is that individuals
who sexually offend have differing aetiologies. They need different degrees of
support in treatment, have different types of cognitive distortions/barriers,
need different interventions and face different challenges reintegration (i.e.
accommodation, employment, etc); therefore, it is essential that we all understand
what we are talking about, use the same language and consider the individual as
the defining factor, not their offence.

Kieran McCartan, PhD

Chief Blogger

David Prescott, LICSW

Associate blogger

Translate

The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (http://atsa.com/) is an international, multi-disciplinary organization dedicated to preventing sexual abuse. Through research, education, and shared learning ATSA promotes evidence based practice, public policy and community strategies that lead to the effective assessment, treatment and management of individuals who have sexually abused or are risk to abuse.

The views expressed on this blog are of the bloggers and are not necessarily those of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, or Sage Journals.

Disclaimer

ATSA does not endorse, support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any Content posted. ATSA does not necessarily or automatically endorse any opinions expressed within this blog. You understand that by reading this blog, you may be exposed to content or opinions that might be offensive, harmful, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate. Under no circumstances will ATSA be liable in any way for any Content, including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in any Content, or any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any Content or opinions posted, emailed, transmitted, or otherwise made available via this blog.